[RichardNorthcott]

ODE 2nd says:
2. (historical) kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.


With these notes:
ORIGIN:
late Middle English: from Latin decimat- ?taken as a tenth?, from the verb decimare, from decimus ?tenth?. In Middle English the term decimation denoted the levying of a tithe, and later the tax imposed by Cromwell on the Royalists (1655).
NOTE:
USAGE Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ?kill one in every ten of (a group of people)?. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ?kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of?, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this and other later senses are incorrect, but it is clear that this is now part of standard English.


Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd Edition revised)
Oxford University Press. 2005

[eagledavid1]

To repeat, the use of the word "decimate" in the context of your post was, to say the least, curious. According to your copy of OED 2nd ed., as well as mine (the full CD Macintosh version which I bought from the Oxford University Press in Toronto, Canada, for $1,250 in 1993!), use of the word implies that a large portion of the English language was "destroyed" or "removed" by the Americans, through adoption of such usages as gotten and -or instead of -our. This does indeed suggest "wholesale" and "a lot", and so certainly overstates the degree to which American usage departs from the original.

[Wondercow]

RichardNorthcott said:

ODE 2nd says:
2. (historical) kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.

Which is exactly what I said. Out of curiosity, what's the first definition?

Quote

USAGE Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ?kill one in every ten of (a group of people)?. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ?kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of?, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this and other later senses are incorrect, but it is clear that this is now part of standard English.

Again, isn't that what I said? I'm confused.

[Wondercow]

eagledavid1 said:

To repeat, the use of the word "decimate" in the context of your post was, to say the least, curious.

I'm good with that ;)
>According to your copy of OED 2nd ed., as well as mine (the full CD Macintosh version which I bought from the Oxford University Press in Toronto, Canada, for $1,250 in 1993!) . . .
And now it'd cost you about $450 CDN.... But I'm sure you got your money's worth ;) That must've been right around the time they introduced the electronic version; too bad it was stuck at 1.0 for so long. Good news though, there's a Mac version of 3.1 coming out in 2009 (all the same content but an update interface) Keep the original for posterity!
>. . . use of the word implies that a large portion of the English language was "destroyed" or "removed" by the Americans, through adoption of such usages as gotten and -or instead of -our. This does indeed suggest "wholesale" and "a lot", and so certainly overstates the degree to which American usage departs from the original.
It literally means 10%, and figuratively means "not a lot" or "a modest amount". I don't see how what I said implies "a large portion." (OK, maybe now I do; you're talking about the USAGE note as RichardNorthcott posted, right? The portion that says This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ?kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of? ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.) When I use decimate in this context its use is figurative and based on the original, or historical, meaning. Obviously Webster, the Simplified Spelling Board, President Roosevelt, et al. didn't pore over every word in the dictionary and choose 10% of them; they looked at the most common words in use. It very well could be me (hey, I can admit that I'm fallible!) but I'm still unsure of how this "does indeed suggest 'wholesale' and 'a lot'" (unless you're using the aforementioned modern sense).

At the risk of repeating myself I'll say again that I support the use of gotten as the pp of get. In fact I'm have T-shirts printed :)

[RichardNorthcott]

Quote

Which is exactly what I said. Out of curiosity, what's the first definition?

Yes. It was. I just though you would like to see ODE to compare with your OED and COD.

here it is:
verb (with obj.)
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of: the inhabitants of the country had been decimated.
? drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): public transport has been decimated.

[eagledavid1]

My objection to the word "decimate" in describing what the Americans have done to the English language rests on the fact that the word has to do with a reduction in quantity, not quality, according to most dictionary definitions. RichardNorthcote quotes an ODE definition, "drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something)", which suggests the word can be used to describe reduced quality. But surely that definition exaggerates the extent to which the American language could conceivably be said to have degraded the original.

So perhaps we should agree to disagree. I'm glad to learn that a new Mac CD version of the OED is soon coming out ? the 15 year-old version I have cannot be used on the current Mac operating system, and its formatting suffers from the Mac Classic system which it requires.

[ssrnj]

as anyone used Cambridge Advance Learners dictionary? Does it use IPA symbols to show the pronunciation? Is the pronunciation provided American, British or both? I would like to have similar information for Cambridge and American heritage dictionary.

[alvaro]

Hi guys,

We?ve released a new reference/dictionary application up on the AppStore. It?s called LexLook!

We?ve gotten pretty good feedback so far. People seem to like it. By default, it comes with an extensive english dictionary. One unique feature we have is the ability to add/share references by all it?s users. For example, you have some recipes you would like to have handy. You can add these to LexLook! If you wish, you can share it with others. Alternatively, you can download references other people have uploaded.

All content is available for offline searching. You may also choose a result and email it to someone else.

At the moment, our application is free. We haven?t quite decided how we are going to go about it. We are currently learning from our users. We?d love to hear your feedback.

Thanks,

Alvaro